From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS31976 209.132.180.0/23 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.8 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN,FREEMAIL_FROM, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD shortcircuit=no autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id C6D671F428 for ; Fri, 5 Jan 2018 20:29:03 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752823AbeAEU3C (ORCPT ); Fri, 5 Jan 2018 15:29:02 -0500 Received: from mail-it0-f65.google.com ([209.85.214.65]:33732 "EHLO mail-it0-f65.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752787AbeAEU27 (ORCPT ); Fri, 5 Jan 2018 15:28:59 -0500 Received: by mail-it0-f65.google.com with SMTP id o130so5546779itg.0 for ; Fri, 05 Jan 2018 12:28:59 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to:references; bh=yd//B0WfSPK4SaJZg8wfjZhvZ6oq7YaIoSc4yACV4Lc=; b=MnbWoTo4vsTOicmMM7tADe9McyAFAFLb8kFBZlXQxmZXOPZviOeciFz9gQXg66Byuf eERjaDWNrcRzEpB+WXCbQfdz3xTONy82ij66QU7aATjwHTk9LLZ97vovLQ6eNayr0lDQ W6zlU+/uiaAAddctJ5oaYrJ6EWiR54O4CRp3DWQHj0AtBCef9JwVapv55y58J0L7q44E gdcufGGhZuHhakcBv3bgOzHSq9QA6ARLWtf8PKqIZtogxqc6yL0/jJILYNQawlXW46HX +o81j+fvfNuRmAQ/D1kqwdj+/AamI/QnRdDERAFXj6JAgqrqCiaBVICgOUFA8uhEUv0G mXAg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to :references; bh=yd//B0WfSPK4SaJZg8wfjZhvZ6oq7YaIoSc4yACV4Lc=; b=pbjyxG7ZL/5jC8mYQg4fKv3gcE0j/ArGXIF4EsPiRDpm8+9sbCB6EDY3gLBsB7Lqc8 2F0nyJdLLrz+8jibxB2ynIc0mL3cJICBbrmxg4C8ydh6j9fNpBHQmPm8yhDjs7d6a0vc fOVSpGZl2btVAich8qqwXHemSyr5Xu+MURPTzo4PPm9843JGWXPjZXC/PdjBVjxD7Z/u SnkgGCMZ4x6KWVlZ/fxCr2nE0f+xt3+JOvYc0yyqSH10ioQvsD58VIVP4tVfapC3vYFy Fq6CS3dNZyYu9iXjOzb5l1K+A01tAth7YgFVfm2I0/A7Q48lg6OwHLnNlaLQjbjs/Mqh pNzw== X-Gm-Message-State: AKGB3mLxe7bpst/oYTzhR3+3Di/I4xews6CnW9t2XjNtHe6hGImPNMGp DcOcg53B3zHgZ2nWGeaEuzbgPtYK X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACJfBouIXwNgjXkzuwhMyuk9UYTNcjcT3jPWai2PCDO9Cd9sRCq8fhTZfbFc+skxzsLdAc1dHfZvOA== X-Received: by 10.36.254.200 with SMTP id w191mr4542268ith.26.1515184138594; Fri, 05 Jan 2018 12:28:58 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost.localdomain (c-73-20-122-173.hsd1.ut.comcast.net. [73.20.122.173]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id 6sm3739659iow.55.2018.01.05.12.28.57 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-CHACHA20-POLY1305 bits=256/256); Fri, 05 Jan 2018 12:28:58 -0800 (PST) From: Elijah Newren To: git@vger.kernel.org Cc: sbeller@google.com, szeder.dev@gmail.com, j6t@kdbg.org, jrnieder@gmail.com, peff@peff.net, git@matthieu-moy.fr, Elijah Newren Subject: [PATCHv6 30/31] merge-recursive: avoid spurious rename/rename conflict from dir renames Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2018 12:27:10 -0800 Message-Id: <20180105202711.24311-31-newren@gmail.com> X-Mailer: git-send-email 2.15.0.409.g72e1e5805 In-Reply-To: <20180105202711.24311-1-newren@gmail.com> References: <20180105202711.24311-1-newren@gmail.com> Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org If a file on one side of history was renamed, and merely modified on the other side, then applying a directory rename to the modified side gives us a rename/rename(1to2) conflict. We should only apply directory renames to pairs representing either adds or renames. Making this change means that a directory rename testcase that was previously reported as a rename/delete conflict will now be reported as a modify/delete conflict. Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren --- merge-recursive.c | 4 +-- t/t6043-merge-rename-directories.sh | 55 +++++++++++++++++-------------------- 2 files changed, 27 insertions(+), 32 deletions(-) diff --git a/merge-recursive.c b/merge-recursive.c index fe42cabad..d00786f71 100644 --- a/merge-recursive.c +++ b/merge-recursive.c @@ -1951,7 +1951,7 @@ static void compute_collisions(struct hashmap *collisions, char *new_path; struct diff_filepair *pair = pairs->queue[i]; - if (pair->status == 'D') + if (pair->status != 'A' && pair->status != 'R') continue; dir_rename_ent = check_dir_renamed(pair->two->path, dir_renames); @@ -2178,7 +2178,7 @@ static struct string_list *get_renames(struct merge_options *o, struct diff_filepair *pair = pairs->queue[i]; char *new_path; /* non-NULL only with directory renames */ - if (pair->status == 'D') { + if (pair->status != 'A' && pair->status != 'R') { diff_free_filepair(pair); continue; } diff --git a/t/t6043-merge-rename-directories.sh b/t/t6043-merge-rename-directories.sh index c684f34b6..99dca4ff0 100755 --- a/t/t6043-merge-rename-directories.sh +++ b/t/t6043-merge-rename-directories.sh @@ -2070,18 +2070,23 @@ test_expect_success '8b-check: Dual-directory rename, one into the others way, w ) ' -# Testcase 8c, rename+modify/delete -# (Related to testcases 5b and 8d) +# Testcase 8c, modify/delete or rename+modify/delete? +# (Related to testcases 5b, 8d, and 9h) # Commit O: z/{b,c,d} # Commit A: y/{b,c} # Commit B: z/{b,c,d_modified,e} -# Expected: y/{b,c,e}, CONFLICT(rename+modify/delete: x/d -> y/d or deleted) +# Expected: y/{b,c,e}, CONFLICT(modify/delete: on z/d) # -# Note: This testcase doesn't present any concerns for me...until you -# compare it with testcases 5b and 8d. See notes in 8d for more -# details. - -test_expect_success '8c-setup: rename+modify/delete' ' +# Note: It could easily be argued that the correct resolution here is +# y/{b,c,e}, CONFLICT(rename/delete: z/d -> y/d vs deleted) +# and that the modifed version of d should be present in y/ after +# the merge, just marked as conflicted. Indeed, I previously did +# argue that. But applying directory renames to the side of +# history where a file is merely modified results in spurious +# rename/rename(1to2) conflicts -- see testcase 9h. See also +# notes in 8d. + +test_expect_success '8c-setup: modify/delete or rename+modify/delete?' ' test_create_repo 8c && ( cd 8c && @@ -2114,32 +2119,32 @@ test_expect_success '8c-setup: rename+modify/delete' ' ) ' -test_expect_success '8c-check: rename+modify/delete' ' +test_expect_success '8c-check: modify/delete or rename+modify/delete' ' ( cd 8c && git checkout A^0 && test_must_fail git merge -s recursive B^0 >out && - test_i18ngrep "CONFLICT (rename/delete).* z/d.*y/d" out && + test_i18ngrep "CONFLICT (modify/delete).* z/d" out && git ls-files -s >out && - test_line_count = 4 out && + test_line_count = 5 out && git ls-files -u >out && - test_line_count = 1 out && + test_line_count = 2 out && git ls-files -o >out && test_line_count = 1 out && git rev-parse >actual \ - :0:y/b :0:y/c :0:y/e :3:y/d && + :0:y/b :0:y/c :0:y/e :1:z/d :3:z/d && git rev-parse >expect \ - O:z/b O:z/c B:z/e B:z/d && + O:z/b O:z/c B:z/e O:z/d B:z/d && test_cmp expect actual && - test_must_fail git rev-parse :1:y/d && - test_must_fail git rev-parse :2:y/d && - git ls-files -s y/d | grep ^100755 && - test_path_is_file y/d + test_must_fail git rev-parse :2:z/d && + git ls-files -s z/d | grep ^100755 && + test_path_is_file z/d && + test_path_is_missing y/d ) ' @@ -2153,16 +2158,6 @@ test_expect_success '8c-check: rename+modify/delete' ' # # Note: It would also be somewhat reasonable to resolve this as # y/{b,c,e}, CONFLICT(rename/delete: x/d -> y/d or deleted) -# The logic being that the only difference between this testcase and 8c -# is that there is no modification to d. That suggests that instead of a -# rename/modify vs. delete conflict, we should just have a rename/delete -# conflict, otherwise we are being inconsistent. -# -# However...as far as consistency goes, we didn't report a conflict for -# path d_1 in testcase 5b due to a different file being in the way. So, -# we seem to be forced to have cases where users can change things -# slightly and get what they may perceive as inconsistent results. It -# would be nice to avoid that, but I'm not sure I see how. # # In this case, I'm leaning towards: commit A was the one that deleted z/d # and it did the rename of z to y, so the two "conflicts" (rename vs. @@ -2891,7 +2886,7 @@ test_expect_success '9h-setup: Avoid dir rename on merely modified path' ' ) ' -test_expect_failure '9h-check: Avoid dir rename on merely modified path' ' +test_expect_success '9h-check: Avoid dir rename on merely modified path' ' ( cd 9h && @@ -3927,7 +3922,7 @@ test_expect_success '12c-setup: Moving one directory hierarchy into another w/ c ) ' -test_expect_failure '12c-check: Moving one directory hierarchy into another w/ content merge' ' +test_expect_success '12c-check: Moving one directory hierarchy into another w/ content merge' ' ( cd 12c && -- 2.14.2